Arizona v. United States is an impending Supreme Court case that is a collision of two controversial topics: immigration and federal versus state authority.

Immigration has traditionally been handled by the federal government, but what happens when states take matters into their own hands?

On Wednesday, April 25, the Supreme Court will present oral arguments, in which the justices will determine the constitutionality of the immigration laws that Arizona recently passed.

Texas Reps. Henry Cuellar, Ted Poe and Lamar Smith all endorse enhanced border security, though they disagree about how the case should be decided.

Rep. Poe, a Republican from Humble, says “the question is, simply, may states, under the guise of public safety, take a federal law and enforce the federal law? Not write their own law, not expand it, not write another law, but take a federal law and then say ‘We are going to enforce that law for public safety reasons.’ And either they can or they can’t. And that’s what the Supreme Court is going to rule.”

Rep. Henry Cuellar (Official photo)

Congressman Smith, a Republican from San Antonio, supports Arizona in the Supreme Court case.

“The Obama administration is wrong to sue the State of Arizona,” says Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a leading House voice on immigration matters. “The Constitution gives Congress the authority and responsibility to establish a uniform immigration policy for the nation. However, if Congress does not preempt states from enacting their own immigration laws, they can assist with federal enforcement and pass laws that are not inconsistent with federal law. That’s precisely what Arizona has done.”

Understanding the potential impact of the case, Poe acknowledges both sides but also sides with Arizona.

“It’ll set a precedent,” said Poe. “It’s an important decision for the Supreme Court to make, and I can see the legal arguments on both sides, I just, personally, think the state of Arizona should be able to win that as a concurrent authority.”

Smith believes that the source of the problem is border security.

“The Arizona law mirrors federal law and is only necessary because the Obama administration has failed to do its job of enforcing our immigration laws and securing the border,” Smith said.

Lamar Smith (Official Photo)

Cuellar, a Democrat from Laredo, empathizes with the border situation, but ultimately believes that the federal government is responsible for immigration issues.

“Immigration is a federal issue,” said Cuellar. “At the same time … I can feel the frustration that states feel from border issues. I live on the border. I understand the border. But, at the end of the day, it’s still a federal issue.”

Poe, who considers himself to be an advocate of states’ rights, said that “the federal government has the initial obligation and duty to enforce border security and the immigration system in the United States. Whether they’re doing it or not, that’s another issue. The second thing is may states also do that in the name of public safety for their citizens? And I think they can. I think they have the authority to do that.”

Many who oppose Arizona’s most recent law argue that it could regress the progress the country has made for civil rights, and that people may be questioned based on how they look and the color of their skin.

Poe shares civil rights concern.

“The Arizona law specifically says that racial profiling is illegal under this bill. Ironically enough, that is a tighter restriction than the federal law, [which] doesn’t mention racial profiling,” he said.

“There has to be a lawful detention of the citizen,” Poe said. “And then there’s a secondary requirement that there must be some reasonable suspicion to go ahead and ask the question about their status.”

He added that police do not have the legal authority to question people solely because they suspect they are not legal residents or citizens.

“They can’t do that because that’s not a lawful stop, an unlawful detention. I agree with that portion of the law. If state police officers violate the law they should be sanctioned or held accountable for it,” Poe said.

Though he was sure of what the Supreme Court should do, he was uncertain of the outcome.

“I’m not sure what they’ll say. I mean they’re judges, after all. I know; I can speak as one.”

“I hope the Supreme Court will stand by the inherent right of Arizona–and all states–to enforce immigration laws when not prohibited by Congress or the Constitution,” said Smith.

Cuellar was concerned that if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona, that could lead to differentiated immigration laws in each state.

“If they would agree with Arizona, that, basically, would mean the Supreme Court would give the green light to have … the other 49 states to come up with their own immigration reform as they in their own political culture … see it fit. The piecemeal approach doesn’t work in this particular case,” he said.

“It’s a multi-faceted problem,” said Poe, who believes we need a new system for immigrants, “but you have to have border security, and then you design a new model that makes it more efficient and more secure so that we can promote our concept of … a country of immigrants, lawful immigrants.”

Senate Bill 1070, also known as Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, has six sections, though four sections are particularly controversial: Section 2B says that if a law-enforcement officer has “reasonable suspicion,” he or she must establish if the person is in the U.S. legally, and cannot discharge the individual, if arrested, until they have established that he or she is in the U.S. legally. Section 3 declares it illegal for an individual not to posses legal documentation papers.

Section 5C establishes illegal aliens who are employed or are seeking employment to have committed a misdemeanor in the state of Arizona. Section 6 states that law-enforcement officers do not need a warrant to arrest an individual who has “probable cause to believe” he or she broke any laws that could lead to deportation.